If patients could get out of bed on their own, they did, she said. “If not, we grabbed people from their beds and put them in wheelchairs.”

The fire came perilously close to Kaiser Santa Rosa medical center and its huge liquid oxygen and diesel tanks. Firefighters weren’t sure they could stave off the blaze that was engulfing the adjacent mobile home park called “Journey’s End,” she said.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but is there some sort of exterior fire suppressant system that could have stopped this in this type of neighborhood? Seems like there would be something you could do. Couldn't be connected with the city's water supply as it would likely cause a massive drop in pressure for a system like that to be effective I suppose. Just feels a bit ridiculous that an entire neighborhood could be burned like this. This is late 1800's Chicago fire type shit. Seems like it shouldn't happen with today's technology.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but is there some sort of exterior fire suppressant system that could have stopped this in this type of neighborhood? Seems like there would be something you could do. Couldn't be connected with the city's water supply as it would likely cause a massive drop in pressure for a system like that to be effective I suppose. Just feels a bit ridiculous that an entire neighborhood could be burned like this. This is late 1800's Chicago fire type shit. Seems like it shouldn't happen with today's technology.

I wonder if stone buildings with metal roofs and metal shutters would've survived this type of event.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but is there some sort of exterior fire suppressant system that could have stopped this in this type of neighborhood? Seems like there would be something you could do. Couldn't be connected with the city's water supply as it would likely cause a massive drop in pressure for a system like that to be effective I suppose. Just feels a bit ridiculous that an entire neighborhood could be burned like this. This is late 1800's Chicago fire type shit. Seems like it shouldn't happen with today's technology.

Was looking for something to protect a cabin years ago, they make spray foams and gels that work pretty well and some can be sprayed up to 48hrs before fire. People that live in housing tracks think that the fire fighter is always going to save the day and that they are immune to this sort of thing. Its amazing that trees are still standing but the houses are burnt to the ground in that photo.

Was looking for something to protect a cabin years ago, they make spray foams and gels that work pretty well and some can be sprayed up to 48hrs before fire.

I felt like I had read something about a product like that. I don't need it where I am, but it sounds familiar. I'm definitely a proponent of less government involvement in things, but it seems like there could be something added to the building code (at least with new construction or full rehabs). It just seems like 100's of homes being burned down in 2017 is rather insane. I get a rural cabin, but an entire neighborhood like this?

I'd move to California in a second for the climate, but you can keep the fucking fires and earthquakes (earthquakes not so much, but you're due and you know it).

They need to be earthquake-proof as well. So maybe not brick and tile.

Boom! And there's the god damn California problem. Beautiful weather, but too much extracurricular mother nature bull shit. I'll take a little winter and the tiny, tiny risk of a tornado where I'm at. I'm over exaggerating of course, but still, an entire neighborhood burned down. That just shouldn't happen today.

I wonder if stone buildings with metal roofs and metal shutters would've survived this type of event.

Construction materials can make a huge difference. Use metal soffits instead of wood. Use non-flammable roof material (e.g. tile or anything else that doesn't burn). Do not have wooden perimeter fences connecting to exterior walls. Do not have shrubbery near exterior walls.

You can design and build for anything. Consider a heat pump moving water from below ground through tubes in walls and roof, to prevent the house becoming an oven.

New cheap burned out land for Democratic voting homeless encampments .... (not close to his urban pad) and use the billion from trump to finish the bullet train to nowhere ...use whats left for more Trump Bashing ads.....at the same time punish hard all those brown mocking climate deniers....where is your priorities anyway? Are you a true leftist or not ....stand up to be counted - but not for the USA flag.

The fires are yet another effect of climate change. Yes, all the trolls will say that fires happened before climate change. And violence happened before Islamic terrorism, but terrorism does make the world a more violent place. Climate change made the fires much, much worse.

Climate change makes wet seasons wetter and hot seasons hotter—which builds fuel. “Based on analysis using climate model projections, the frequency of Santa Ana events is uncertain,” Jin says. “But all the models agree that the intensity of Santa Ana events is going to be much stronger.”

Models say the same thing about sea level rise and hurricanes. A continent away from the fires in California, cities along the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean have been battered by tropical cyclones, one after the other. This year, ocean water heated by a warming climate, unusually wet weather, and a lack of the vertical wind shear that can tame a big storm combined to produce an anomalous season. It has already been a fire season and a hurricane season that are, as researchers say, consistent with models of a changing climate.

Big deadly fires are nothing new to California, particularly during fire season when the Santa Ana or Diablo winds blow hot and dry, making tinder out of trees and bushes that have been baking all summer long.

But the firestorm now raging through Northern California isn’t the typical wildfire. For one thing, it’s not just one fire but close to two dozen. For another, these fires are not only threatening hard-to-reach rural or mountains area, but they also have torn through suburban neighborhoods.

This is not just bad luck. Coming on the heels of other large-scale natural disasters — Houston inundated by a slow-moving tropical storm, swaths of Florida and the Caribbean ripped to shreds by a monster hurricane, much of Puerto Rico leveled by an equally powerful hurricane, a handful of Western states swept by massive fires that burned up millions of acres — one can’t help but see a disturbing pattern emerge. Those superstorms that scientists warned would result from climate change? They are here. The day of reckoning isn’t in the future. It is now.

All of those factors are exacerbated by the warming world. Hotter summers yield more fuel for fires and stronger winds to fan the flames. And this summer was California’s hottest on record, a milestone dramatically illustrated when San Francisco hit 106 degrees on Sept. 1 during a statewide heat wave.

Similarly, scientists say climate change doesn’t cause hurricanes, but it can make them bigger and more destructive. Higher air temperatures mean more evaporation and heavier rains outside of drought zones, and warmer seas intensify the size and fury of the storms themselves. It’s a double whammy that has contributed to an unusually severe hurricane season this year.

So what's the cost of climate change in Santa Rosa for this year? Well, there are Looters and price gougers demonstrating that climate change both increases violent crime and increases the costs of general goods. But the larger cost is estimated at $65 billion in residential property alone. That's a mighty big tab for a single consequence of climate change, especially since that tab is only one of many, many tabs that are going to come in.

In the not-so-distant future, climate change will cost America alone over $1 trillion per year every year. That's about $6666 per tax payer per year. More so if you earn more. And those are just direct costs that don't include the lost of economic productivity, which could be the much larger than $1 trillion per year. So tell me again how letting pollution go uncheck saves you money.

To put this in perspective, the direct costs to the U.S. alone will easily be over 5% of our GDP. The indirect costs may be much higher. Climate change is an economy killer. Just because dumb asses don't record costs properly on ledgers doesn't make those real-world costs disappear.

I don't think this is what you're implying. But it would be a good narrative. The fire department or whatever resources that would be in charge of putting these out is intentionally setting the fires. What's the end goal you ask? More resourced earmarked to put these fires out. More resources come flooding in and then over the years there are fewer and fewer fires are occurring. Yet the increase in funds allowed those at the top to pump up their salaries and hire their buddies. And without a depression, good luck politically reducing 1st responder's money. It's a non-starter.

Took this shot leaving SFO yesterday. This is normally a crystal clear view of the city, but the air pollution from the fires is really bad. And no, that's not the morning fog. That was taken around 2pm.

Correct. I bet the insurance companies hate it, but if these events are indeed from global warming, they're very likely to have a positive impact on GDP. Three hurricanes, two hit US states and two ravaged multiple US territories. Massive property loss from fires in the West. 2017 Q4 with the holidays and all this rebuilding could be a big number.

but if these events are indeed from global warming, they're very likely to have a positive impact on GDP. Three hurricanes, two hit US states and two ravaged multiple US territories. Massive property loss from fires in the West. 2017 Q4 with the holidays and all this rebuilding could be a big number.

So if I break the windows in everyone's houses, the GDP goes up?

Replacing destroyed goods does not increase the wealth of a society. It does not even maintain the wealth of the society because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No, breaking a window and replacing it, burning a house and building a new one, getting cancer and curing it results in a net loss of wealth to society.

If such things actually increased wealth as Keynesians believe, then ANTIFA would be heroes. Just let those thugs burn down entire cities and the good times will roll. Why does common sense never get applied to economics. It's not magic. It's arithmetic.

If the goods being replaced are sold at a higher profit margin ( which they typically are ) then the destroyed goods, wealth increases.If the goods being replaced are more technologically advanced ( which they typically are ) then the destroyed goods, efficiency, and indirectly, wealth, increases.If the goods being replaced require hiring more people ( which they typically do ) then the wealth of society increases with the larger tax base.There's three scenarios I came up with in 34 seconds that destroy your entire statement.Care to rescind?Dan8267 says

In this case I don't see why the GDP wouldn't go up. People had paid into the insurance premiums. Insurance companies held onto the money. And now they're paying it back in a way. So I don't see a negative there. Yes homes and material were lost, but the purchase of new materials and costs of labor put much more money back into the system then if there wasn't a hurricane/fire. If there were no disasters these insurance companies would just be sitting on piles of cash. As the money grows and grows, who do you think most of that money will go to? Those at the top. Now the money gets to go to carpenters, plumbers, roofer, electricians, etc who in turn buy things with this money, instead of it sitting with State Farm. Dan8267 says

Replacing destroyed goods does not increase the wealth of a society. It does not even maintain the wealth of the society because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No, breaking a window and replacing it, burning a house and building a new one, getting cancer and curing it results in a net loss of wealth to society.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the burnt down material in the house is gone and cannot be replaced? Therefore it's a net loss? I guess I kind of get that if that's what you're saying. I mean we can grow more trees for the lumber, but probably not at a quick enough pace to keep up with the demand for lumber. So I suppose all those destroyed homes would be a negative in the regard to putting us further behind the replacement curve for trees. Or say plastics in the house that are destroyed, now have to be made again using products that are finite, oil. If that's what you're saying then I would tend to agree, but....

Every single day, everything is becoming more finite regardless of a hurricane or fire. Do these events speed the depletion of those resources, sure. The ultimate end game is death for most everybody (long time away) as these resources are depleted. The options to extend this deadline is population controls or find more resources elsewhere. There are likely other options, but these are the most impactful and likely in my opinion.

The first is probably the easiest and quickest solution to slow down the process, put limits on # of children. At least in the US, this won't happen in our lifetimes. Yet it's the single easiest way, if carbon is likely the cause of climate problems, to make life last longer on earth. I wouldn't do this or agree with this because the end game is still the same. The last dozen or so centuries before life is no longer sustainable on earth are likely not worth living in anyway. So moving the goalpost isn't all that great of a solution except for a select few, who would likely be the powerful anyway.

The second is the only true way to keep human life on earth surviving on a much longer timeline. I believe way more resources need to be put into the discovery and exploration of other planets and the potential resources that may exist on and within them. We as humans can survive temperature changes (not all will, many would die), but we can't survive without certain resources for very long or at least sustaining the current amount of people let alone as we add more people every day.

While the discussion and science around climate change is real, I've always held a pessimistic view of it. What's the point? If we don't control population or find resources elsewhere, the end game is all the same. It's very likely that much of the resources sunk into climate change are putting us on a faster path towards our demise. As we reduce our per capita output of carbon, we increase the population so it essentially stays at the same level due to population increases.

Electric cars, solar, nuclear, wind power, etc these are all awesome. I support them in the long run. But when we run out of fresh and clean water for the population, it doesn't matter. When the oil is gone, something will replace it. But it will likely be another finite resource. The game can only last so long as the population increases or we don't find additional resources to sustain.

Back to the hurricanes and fires. They really don't matter in the big picture in my opinion. They're just one pixel on a 4k screen. They're mathematically insignificant. This is a made up number, but as long as 10,000 people are being born every day and only 7,500 are dying, we going to run into a wall at some point. A couple hurricanes or fires in 2017 have no bearing on that, except that they reduce the population in bad disasters.

And that's what I'm saying above. The math isn't looking good and it has nothing to do with climate change in my opinion. While I'm here, I might as well celebrate a quarter in which people will have more money in their pockets. Unfortunately it's due to a natural disaster that is difficult to definitively peg to climate change. Especially hurricanes and fires. Actually the fires are almost certainly directly tied to population increases and the search for usable land for residential homes that are in technically riskier areas. If there were subdivision there 100 years ago, they likely would have burned at one point too.

The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) issued a detainer request on the Sonoma County Jail for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, who was arrested Sunday on suspicion of arson in Wine Country fires that have killed at least 40 residents.

Replacing destroyed goods does not increase the wealth of a society. It does not even maintain the wealth of the society because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No, breaking a window and replacing it, burning a house and building a new one, getting cancer and curing it results in a net loss of wealth to society.

If such things actually increased wealth as Keynesians believe, then ANTIFA would be heroes. Just let those thugs burn down entire cities and the good times will roll. Why does common sense never get applied to economics. It's not magic. It's arithmetic.

It's no that simple in real life. Clearly breaking something in isolation doesn't increase wealth. But, in certain situations, where people are hoarding money causing an unvirtuous cycle of factories closing leading to less demand leading to more factories closing, etc--an event which forces people to spend their hoarded wealth can be an overall gain to the economy and country. The increased activity associated with higher velocity of money can be a huge gain where people are working again. An economy and a country with lower unemployment is stronger.

And that's what most people don't understand about Keynes. He didn't propose a one solution fits all panacea. He advocated a REDUCTION in spending during the good times. Politicians never do this, of course, but it's certainly not Keynes' fault.